26-201.
Cities; authority to condemn; interest acquired; resolution, notice, ordinance; exercise of power.
A city shall have the right to acquire by condemnation any interest in real property, including a fee simple title thereto, but cities shall not have the right to acquire a fee simple title to property condemned solely for street purposes. Whenever it shall be deemed necessary by the governing body of any city to appropriate private property for the use of the city for any purpose whatsoever, the governing body shall by resolution declare such necessity and authorize a survey and description of the land or interest to be condemned to be made by a licensed land surveyor or a professional engineer who is competent to conduct a land survey and filed with the city clerk. Such resolution shall be published once in the official city newspaper. Upon the filing of the survey and description of the land or interest to be condemned the governing body shall by ordinance authorize and provide for the acquisition of such land or interest, setting forth such condemnation, the interest to be taken and for what purpose the same is to be used. If in the opinion of the governing body any property is specially benefited by the proposed improvement such property shall be designated as the benefit district and the same shall be fixed by the ordinance authorizing and providing for the acquisition of the land or interest. The governing body, as soon as practicable after passage of the ordinance authorizing and providing for the appropriation of such land or interest and the fixing of the benefit district, if any is fixed, shall proceed to exercise the power of eminent domain in accordance with the eminent domain procedure act.
History:
R.S. 1923, 26-201; L. 1963, ch. 234, § 71; L. 1967, ch. 211, § 1; L. 1972, ch. 147, § 1; L. 2006, ch. 192, § 10; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
State Ex Rel. Hawks v. City of Topeka, 270 P.2d 270 (Kan. 1954).
· cites it 4× “e legislature, such as section 8-508, the city may regulate the standing or parking of vehicles on its streets; section 12-602, that cities may grade, pave or improve streets and levy assessments for the payment thereof; section 13-443, the city may vacate or close any street or…”
McAlister v. City of Fairway, 212 P.3d 184 (Kan. 2009).
“” This language shows the legislature’s intent to delegate this power to the City’s governing body and not to its electors. In addition, the statute limits the manner in which a city may exercise this eminent domain power by requiring that cities conform to the Eminent Domain…”
Gen. Bldg. Contractors, L.L.C. v. Bd. of Shawnee Cnty. Commissioners, 66 P.3d 873 (Kan. 2003).
“GBC and Tolbert maintain because cities in Kansas also enjoy home rule powers but derive their powers of eminent domain, not through the home rule statute, but rather under K.S.A. 26-201, this court cannot assume that the legislature intended to give counties the power of…”
City of Wichita v. Aero Holdings, Inc., 177 F. Supp. 2d 1153 (D. Kan. 2000).
· cites it 2× “See K.S.A. §§ 26-201, and 26-501 through 26-517 (setting forth a city's authority and procedure for expropriating property under Kansas law).”
Mid-Am. Pipeline Co. v. Lario Enter., Inc., 716 F. Supp. 511 (D. Kan. 1989).
“The tramways projected for HPT also should not violate plaintiffs easement rights since these paths will not be built up or hard-surfaced like the racetracks. 23. The City of Topeka owns the property below the asphalt tracks.”
City of Kansas City v. Crestmoore Downs, Inc., 644 P.2d 494 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982).
“On September 30, 1980, the appellee, City of Kansas City, Kansas, filed an eminent domain proceeding pursuant to K.S.A. 26-201 et seq. to acquire easements to lands, or interest and rights therein.”
City of Westwood v. M & M Oil Co., 626 P.2d 817 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981).
“The city of Westwood filed a petition on January 16, 1980, in the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas seeking to exercise the power of eminent domain per K.S.A. 26-201 et seq., over land commonly referred to as 47th and Rainbow Blvd.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.